Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 37857
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J
S.Umapathy – Appellant
Versus
The Superintendent of Police, Erode Region, Erode District – Respondent
Writ Petition (Crl.)
For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Selvaraj
For Respondent(s): M/S. LEONARD ARUL JOSEPH SELVAM ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for R1 and R2
Police must conduct enquiry before providing protection against alleged property encroachment.
Headnote:Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing police authorities to consider a representation for protection against threats and trespass by private respondents. The facts involve a property derived via a Will upheld by civil court decree in O.S.No.214 of 2012, prior assault leading to FIR Crime 425 of 2020 under Sections 294(b), 323 & 506(2) IPC, and a subsequent complaint CSR No.234 of 2022 for trespass yielding no action. The court found police inaction on the representation pending enquiry. The primary issue framed was whether police must provide protection based on the representation absent prior enquiry. The ratio decidendi holds that police should conduct an enquiry upon petitioner's appearance with documents, affording opportunity to parties including alleged encroachers, before granting protection if illegal encroachment is confirmed, relying on precedent in 2014(2)CTC 695. The writ petition was disposed of with directions for the petitioner to appear before police with documents for enquiry to be completed within two months.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks police protection post-representation inaction. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. property via upheld will; prior assault and trespass complaints. (Para 3) |
| 3. prosecution supports enquiry-based protection grant. (Para 4) |
| 4. directs enquiry within two months; petition disposed. (Para 5) |
PRAYER: The writ petition (crl.) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 16.03.2026 and to provide adequate police protection to the life and property of the petitioner situated a Maniyakaran Thottam, Pudupalayam, Gettisamudram Village, Anthiyur Taluk, Erode District against the illegal threats and violent interference by the respondents 3 to 5 and their henchmen, and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Selvaraj For Respondent(s): M/S. LEONARD ARUL JOSEPH SELVAM ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for R1 and R2
ORDER
The writ petition (Crl.) has been filed to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 16.03.2026 and to provide adequate police protection to the life and property of the petitioner situated a Maniyakaran Thottam, Pudupalayam, Gettisamudram Village, Anthiyur Taluk, Erode District against the illegal threats and violent interference by the respondents 3 to 5 and their henchmen.
2.The petitioner sent a representation dated 16.03.2026 to the first and second respondent. Thereafter no action has been taken. Hence, the above petition
3.The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner derived a property though a Will dated 21.11.2007. Thereafter, since there was objection the enjoyment of the property, his relatives filed civil suit in O.S.No.214 of 2012 before the Sub Court, Bhavani and the civil Court had upheld the Will by judgment and decree dated 06.10.2025. The 5th respondent, in this case, on 04.06.2020 demanded a share in the property, which was denied and the petitioner’s father was attacked and he has sustained injuries and a case in crime 425 of 2020 for offences under Sections 294 (b), 323 & 506(2) IPC registered by the second respondent police. After the demise of the petitioner’s father, on 12.10.2022 3 to 5th respondents trespassed into the petitioner’s property and attempted to dispossess the petitioner from the enjoyment of the property. Hence, lodged a complaint and CSR No.234 of 2022 assigned but no action has been taken. Hence, he sent a representation to the respondents police and for the inaction, the present writ petition has been filed.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first and second respondents submitted that based on the petitioner’s complaint CSR.No.234 of 2022 assigned and now, the petitioner is seeking police protection to enjoy his property and also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Radhika Sri Hari and another Vs. Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore and others reported in 2014(2)CTC 695. He further submitted that if the petitioner appears before the respondent police along with supporting documents, the respondent police will conduct enquiry by calling all the encroachers including the respondents 3 to 5 and other encroachers. Upon such enquiry, if any illegal encroachment is found, appropriate police protection will be given to the petitioner.
5.Considering the submissions made by the learned Additional Public prosecutor, this Court directs the petitioner to appear before the respondent police along with supporting documents and the respondents police are directed to conduct enquiry, give an opportunity to the parties and complete the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6.With the above direction, this writ petition (crl.) is disposed of.
